Completely untrue. It just goes to show how bastardized the word 'skill' has become. He was tough to catch clean and arguably the greatest in-fighter ever. That takes a refined, learned skill set and took Armstrong dozens of fights to perfect it.

Completely untrue. It just goes to show how bastardized the word 'skill' has become. He was tough to catch clean and arguably the greatest in-fighter ever. That takes a refined, learned skill set and took Armstrong dozens of fights to perfect it.

You might want to check your own biases. I'm not slandering his ability, he was one of the best ever, but he was every bit as much a wild bruiser as a technician, closer to a Pryor than a Frazier. From a skill standpoint there have been better infighters, he just had a very good balance of skill and brawling instinct similar to Duran. He'd use technique to get inside, then just unload.

You might want to check your own biases. I'm not slandering his ability, he was one of the best ever, but he was every bit as much a wild bruiser as a technician, closer to a Pryor than a Frazier. From a skill standpoint there have been better infighters, he just had a very good balance of skill and brawling instinct similar to Duran. He'd use technique to get inside, then just unload.

I don't think there are any biases and I didn't think you were slandering. At the point where you make the comparison to Duran and the technique it takes to get inside like they did, we're getting pretty far from wild bruiser. Duran was a brilliantly skilled infighter. So was Armstrong.

You might want to check your own biases. I'm not slandering his ability, he was one of the best ever, but he was every bit as much a wild bruiser as a technician, closer to a Pryor than a Frazier. From a skill standpoint there have been better infighters, he just had a very good balance of skill and brawling instinct similar to Duran. He'd use technique to get inside, then just unload.

I don't know about that. They are very similar. Pryor on the other hand has little in common with Armstrong.

Fighters like Armstrong and even LaMotta or Basilio were skilled, but I'm guessing that the thread starter was looking for boxers who utilized counter-punching and footwork instead of swarming pressure and in-fighting to win.

I don't know about that. They are very similar. Pryor on the other hand has nothing in common with Armstrong.

Wow, NOTHING in common with Pryor? I think Pryor is the truest successor to his whirlwind offense, the way they would unload once they got in. Pure offense, never a step back. They worked their way inside a bit differently though, Armstrong was a bit more methodical and less wild. But once inside, they would unload all over with barrages.

Brawling ability is not a negative trait and does not mean one is necessarily a lesser fighter than one that relies solely on technique.

Wow, NOTHING in common with Pryor? I think Pryor is the truest successor to his whirlwind offense, the way they would unload once they got in. Pure offense, never a step back. They worked their way inside a bit differently though.

Pryor was a whirlwind but he would change things up a lot and was as unpredictable as they come. Armstrong stuck to the in-fighting and was a far more skilled in-fighter than Pryor, always maneuvering himself in the best possible position which helped him overcome much bigger opponents.

When you look at the footage (see above highlight) there's just very little in common with Henry Armstrong, aside from both setting a high pace.

Completely untrue. It just goes to show how bastardized the word 'skill' has become. He was tough to catch clean and arguably the greatest in-fighter ever. That takes a refined, learned skill set and took Armstrong dozens of fights to perfect it.

ah, this argument is an ancient one. Not Armstrong, but the idea that punchers are less skilled then boxers. There are basically two routes to take. Brute and finesse. Since a more brutal way of fighting is not complex but forceful. The actions taken are easily perceived. The brute forces his fight plan. Finesse is complicated. Veiled intentions are the name of the game. Given the nature of intent it is harder to follow. Very much like reading a book a boxer may foreshadow his ends, but by no means will he tell you. Maybe in vague terms in pre fight nonsense, but he will not ever divulge the details. The bruiser gets a bad rap because it's simplicity comes off as easy. I like Rocco so he's easy for my to talk about, though Armstrong certainly had more boxer in him than Rocky I feel the comparison works. Rocky's plan is obvious. He's going to hit you as hard, and as often as he can with out stopping. In his era I suppose the boxer of the day was LaStarza who's job description alone is much more vague. To counter punch is of it's self a plan-less plan. Basically he's going to react to the punchers plan and hope his wit is keen enough to cope with the brute's pace ect. With that said obviously both fight patterns take skills. they are themselves skills. But to the casual viewer one appears straight forward and the other tricky. As if the trickster could, if he wasn't busy being tricky, fight exactly as his opponent does. Almost like a video game. One kid keeps trying to do a 10 button combo but can't because his friend wont stop pushing one button really fast. It seems harder to push ten buttons, and certainly seems like if you can do ten you could do one much faster. Alas the kid who always uses but one button will always be faster then the one accustomed to ten. Anyway since there is no real way of defining them holistically, and line blur. Many of us have come up with terms that are only half true. What I just wrote is full of them. I often describe Rocky as skill less, but I don't mean it. It just a way of getting on with the convo with someone who sees punching as a trait not a skill.

Not to continue an argument. I've just always been curious myself as to why anyone would call say Tyson unskilled. It's not so obvious when hanging around the historians on the net, but off-line in a sports bar...my ****. Personally. I've always felt like will forcing is the most important and complex skill a boxer can attain. Why I'm such a Rocco fan.

I'm not sure and I'm sure the TS will confirm but I'm going off the presumption that the TS means skilled as well as capable, per se.

I would personally argue that Gavilan is argubally more talented and skilled than an even prime Armstrong.

That, of course, is open for debate.

I worded terribly lol. glad y'all knew what I was saying I really didn't mean for it to come off so jerky. Also, OP says fighters not fighter. My mentioning Armstrong wasn't meant for to compete with but be in addition to Gavilan. I took it as asking for a list of the greatest names on resume, and was surprised given rob snell's thread on him that no one mentioned Armstrong. I just felt like he's definitely an ATG, and he did fight SRR. Albeit faded, but still thats one great highly skilled name to have on your record. I'd be quite happy with it. anyhow I mostly wanted to clear up what I meant to say...lol two posts ago.

I don't know about that. They are very similar. Pryor on the other hand has little in common with Armstrong.

Fighters like Armstrong and even LaMotta or Basilio were skilled, but I'm guessing that the thread starter was looking for boxers who utilized counter-punching and footwork instead of swarming pressure and in-fighting to win.

doesn't really matter so much

I just wanted to know who the best he fought was, and I got my answer. It's the Kid and Armstrong.